Review: Connecting watershed services, livelihoods and
human security
Water and watershed services make an essential contribution to meeting all of the
Millennium Development Goals and for human well-being in general. However,
attempts to demonstrate their economic significance in specific places have brought
attention to complex and dynamic relationships that exist between land use, water and
livelihoods and that are difficult to quantify. They have also highlighted conflicts between
multiple objectives of water and watershed management that cannot all be resolved by
planting trees. Various aspects of this are illustrated in a collection of case studies
recently published in a special issue of EFTRN on Forests, Water and Livelihoods
(edited by Meine van Noordwijk and Erika van Duyl) and some of which are highlighted
below.
For example, in Lake Singarak, West Sumatra, van Noordwijk conducted a rapid
appraisal identifying trade-offs between multiple objectives that included : maintaining
the lake at a sufficient level to support hydropower production, maintaining productive
agriculture in the hillsides, using water to irrigate rice fields in the plains, and maintaining
water quality. However, the influence of land cover on hydropower production is much
smaller than normal year-to-year variation in rainfall. Other trade-offs are that any
increase in water availability as a result of land degradation would be offset by a
reduction in water quality and that reforestation with fast growing evergreen trees would
reduce water availability. Therefore, delivery of watershed services provides a weak
rationale for payments by the hydropower company to the local government.
As discussed in other ETFRN case studies (by Palmer; Chappell and Bonnell; Enters and
Durst), whether forest cover increases the amount of rainfall infiltrating the soil depends
on soil conditions. Whether or this water is then released to streams, thus maintaining a
steady flow, or is evapo-transpired (consumed by vegetation) , depends on the depth of
vegetation roots compared with the depth of underlying aquifers. Water that reaches
streams can be reserved for instream flow or diverted for other uses. However, increased
infiltration that is entirely consumed by vegetation, i.e. green water, may also support rainfed agriculture as well as maintaining wildlife habitat. Furthermore, while reforestation
projects may consume more water in the short-term, they are likely to consume less in
the long-term as vegetation matures. Whether or not any of this makes a significant
difference in stream flow depends on conditions across the landscape.
Given the difficulty of balancing priorities, trade-offs are often avoided and not even
fully understood until a disaster exposes vulnerabilities and lack of capacity to respond .
It can be convenient to attribute damages to logging, which may well be a contributing
factor. However, when the finger is pointed at any one single cause of a complex
problem, it also diverts attention from other more controversial measures that are
necessary to reduce vulnerability. It may also reflect land use conflicts between
downstream and marginalized upland populations, as is seen in the Viasayas (Philippines)
case study by Soriaga.
In Eastern Luzon (Philippines), logging may have been a contributing factor to the
catastrophic flooding that occurred in 2004. However, according to the case study by
Walpole, much of the damage was the result of tree plantations being uprooted from
flood plains, and of people and infrastructure being in harms way. Addressing these
sources of vulnerability in advance would require the identification of land for relocation
of displaced communities. This would in turn require recognition or reallocation of land
and water rights, changes in infrastructure, and the resolution of conflicting local
livelihood needs and more powerful external interests. Livelihoods (as well as
management of watersheds), rely not only on regular flows of fresh water and sediment.
They also depend on relationships between people, through which ecosystem goods and
services are managed and exchanged, and on flows of information that inform decisions
about trade-offs (Moench and Dixit 2004). By asking the right questions instead of
attempting to implement standardized approaches, watershed management problems can
be understood in the context of multiple and often conflicting values and criteria that
actually drive land use decisions (Verbist and van Noordwijk).
Together, these case studies illustrate a learning approach that is necessary to adapt to a
rapidly changing environment. Although this approach takes more time, Van den Berg
considers that it can also clarify obstacles to meeting livelihood needs. It can also lead to
different and more effective kinds of responses – which are illustrated in other case
studies not discussed here. The alternative is to learn the hard way, as and when disasters
occur.
References and further information
EFTRN News 45/46: Forests, Water and Livelihoods.
Rijsberman, F. and N. Manning 2006, Beyond More Crop per Drop – Water
management for food and the environment. International Water Management Institute,
Report released at the 4th World Water Forum 16-22 March, 2006, Mexico
Falkenmark and Rockstrom 2004. Balancing water for humans and nature: the new
approach in ecohydrology. Earthscan.
Bebbington, A. 1999. Capitals and capabilities: A framework for analyzing peasant
viability, rural livelihoods and poverty in the Andes. (IIED and DFID)
Moench M. and A. Dixit (eds) 2004, Adaptive Capacity and Livelihood Resilience:
Adaptive Strategies for Responding to Floods and Droughts in South Asia.
Poverty Environment Partnership. Linking poverty reduction and water management
Ecology and Society Special Feature: Exploring Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems:
Comparative Studies and Theory Development Guest Editors: Brian Walker, Ann
Kinzig, John Anderies, and Paul Ryan
Balancing Human Security and Ecological Security Interests in a Catchment – Towards
Upstream/Downstream Hydrosolidarity Proceedings, Siwi Seminar, Stockholm, August 16,
2002 Organized by the Stockholm International Water Institute (SIWI) in collaboration
with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). SIWI Report 17, Published
2002 by Stockholm International Water Institute, Stockholm
Sweden
Van Koppen, B., Moriarty P., and Boelee E. 2006. Multiple Use Water Services to
Advance the Millennium Development Goals. Research Report 98. Colombo, Sri Lanka:
International Water Management Institute.
Feedback and Commentary
If you have a good rule-of-thumb, or other comments, please send them to
comments@flowsonline.net for inclusion in the next bulletin. We also welcome input
and references for forthcoming bulletins.
About the Flows Bulletin
The Flows Bulletin is produced by Sylvia Tognetti, an independent consultant on
environmental science and policy, with the collaboration and support of IIED project on
Policy Learning in Action: Developing Markets for Watershed Protection Services and
Improved Livelihoods, and the World Bank, through the Bank-Netherlands Watershed
Partnership Program.
The Flows Bulletin is a forum for multiple perspectives, and does not necessarily
represent the views of the sponsoring organizations.
Material from Flows may be freely used providing that the source is acknowledged.
Previous issues of the Flows Bulletin are archived at www.flowsonline.net Flows is also
available in Spanish - to receive it is Spanish, please send an e-mail to subscribespanish@flowsonline.net
Flows bulletins 7-12 are available also in Indonesian, online at www.flowsonline.net. To
receive future bulletins in Indonesian as they become available, please send an e-mail to
subscribe-indonesian@flowsonline.net
To subscribe in English please send an e-mail to: join-flows@list.flowsonline.net or visit
www.flowsonline.net
To unsubscribe from the English, please send an e-mail to: leave-flows@list.flowsonline